WOIFM

Judicially Vacant Arguments

UPDATE: I've read Rafe's response and I'm working on a rebuttal to address his logical errors, statistical omissions, and - ahem - lack of context.

Rafe accuses Rush Limbaugh of being "a lazy thinker or a liar and card cheat" and then goes on to commit those same crimes himself:

Is a Republican accusing a Democrat of blocking federal court appointments? Could this be possible? The Senate Judiciary Committee was famous for blocking Clinton judiciary appointments throughout Clinton's Presidency. In fact, the degree to which Clinton's appointments were stonewalled was legendary.

Sorry, Rafe, but just because a story is famous or legendary doesn't mean it's true. I pointed out the rank hypocrisy of Senate Democrats just a few days ago. Now that they are in power, they have completely failed to live up to the standards they set for Republicans, let alone match the pace that Republicans set for themselves.

Rafe continues,

Limbaugh points out that nearly half of the judges currently on the federal bench were appointed by Clinton -- Clinton was President for the past 8 years! Where's the context for this factoid? The year after Reagan left office, how many of the spots in the judiciary were Reagan appointments?

Clinton had 374 confirmed judges, only four less than Reagan, and the second-highest total ever, according to the Free Congress Foundation. Does that sound like a vacancy crisis to you?

To add a little more context, in three-plus terms, Roosevelt only had 197. Nixon's term-and-a-half only gave him time for 231 confirmed judges. Context enough for you?

Leahy hasn't even been the chair of the Judiciary Committee for 6 months. The fact that the federal bench has so many empty seats falls squarely at the feet of the Republicans who refused to consider Clinton's appointments by either delaying their consideration or rejecting the appointees before they came to a vote.

Before the Democrats even came to power in the Senate, Senator Tom Daschle threatened Bush's judicial nominees, saying, "We just won't allow the vote." Rafe, would you consider that blocking nominations? Wouldn't that mean, that at least in this instance, that Rush is right and you are flat-out wrong? Oh, and by the way, Senator Leahy believes, "Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis." By Leahy's own standard, he should have arranged for SEVENTY-EIGHT confirmations by now. So far there have been about three.

So Rafe, were you lying, dealing from the bottom of the deck, or did you simply not bother to check your facts?